Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

John Kerry: Getting to “No” with the Palestinians

John Kerry: Getting to “No” with the Palestinians

Mideast Media Sampler 12/06/2013 – Kerry Tries to Sell Security Plan

A few months ago, Secretary of State John Kerry allowed as to how he was worried about Israel’s future if it did not reach a peace deal with the Palestinians. Israel’s Prime Minister has played along sending his emissaries to negotiate with Palestinian partners who don’t want to make a deal.

So this week, out of his deep seated concern for the Jewish State, the New York Times reported Wednesday that U.S., Stepping Up Role, Will Present West Bank Security Proposal to Israel:

The presentation is to be made to Mr. Netanyahu on Thursday by John R. Allen, the former American commander in Afghanistan and a retired Marine general who serves as an adviser to Secretary of State John Kerry on the Middle East peace talks. …

“It will include many details and specifics,” said a State Department official who asked not to be identified under diplomatic protocol established by the agency. “He will be presenting a piece of what will be a larger whole.” …

State Department officials described the security briefing as an “ongoing process” and not a finished product on which the United States was demanding a yes-or-no vote from the Israeli side.

The Optimistic Conservative reacts skeptically to this last quote:

Sure, because announcing it in advance will put no onus on Israel to respond in a yes-or-no-type manner. This formulation is like an addict pleading that he’s not using, he’s just snorting some coke.

Whether or not Israel agreed to the plan, the Palestinians made the matter moot (at first anyway.)

The Palestinian Authority rejected Kerry’s ideas for security arrangements under a possible future peace accord with Israel, a PA official said, according to Reuters. “The Palestinian side rejected them because they would only lead to prolonging and maintaining the occupation,” according to the official, who refused to allow his name to be used.

However, in a later Reuters report, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat must have realized how damaging the truth would be.

But Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat told the official Palestinian news agency Wafa that report was “completely incorrect”. Erekat stressed Kerry had not presented a final proposal and that talks would continue.

Of course the first report wasn’t “completely incorrect.” Notice Erakat’s qualification that the proposal was not “final.” Implicitly, then, Erakat’s saying that the proposal made by Gen. Allen is unacceptable as it is. (For all we know he was also the anonymous official who rejected the proposal.)

According to a report cited by Israel Matzav, the United States has accepted Israel’s position about its security needs.

So, according to Reuters, how did Kerry deal with this setback? Did he say that he was worried about a future Palestinian state that wasn’t willing to compromise? Well, no.

Kerry said they had discussed “at great length issues of security in the region, security for the state of Israel, security for a future Palestine”.

“I think the interests are very similar, but there are questions of sovereignty, questions of respect and dignity which are obviously significant to the Palestinians, and for the Israelis very serious questions of security and also of longer-term issues of how we end this conflict once and for all,” he added.

Abbas did not join Kerry at the Ramallah media appearance.

Abbas snubbed Kerry at the press conference. Remarkable! Kerry tries to force a security plan on Israel and he can’t even get the Palestinians to cooperate! So what does the Secretary of State do? He doesn’t express his frustration with the Palestinians but offers phony platitudes about both sides having “interests” that “are very similar.”

In his column this week Thomas Friedman wrote:

On the Israeli-Palestinian front, Obama’s job is to make himself as annoying as possible to Netanyahu.

How exactly will American pressure on Israel help, when, as Jonathan Tobin writes, it isn’t Israel that needs nudging:

If the latest round of talks with the Palestinians promoted by the administration is stuck in neutral it is not because of Israel’s positions on settlements or Jerusalem but because, as most serious observers have long understood, for a variety of reasons (including the fact that Hamas rules Gaza) the PA leadership is simply incapable of making peace.

To summarize: The United States presented a security plan. Israel apparently accepted it. The Palestinians apparently rejected it. How long before Kerry is asking for some new concession from Israel?

Bonus Question: Reuters describes the post-disengagement situation like this:

Israel quit Gaza unilaterally in 2005, after which Hamas came to power there. The sides have repeatedly exchanged fire since.

“Repeatedly exchanged fire?” Really?

How about “Since Israel withdrew from Gaza, Hamas has built an arsenal and used it to threaten hundreds of thousands of residents of southern Israel; twice provoking wars?” Anyone out there have a better and more accurate sentence?

[Photo: JewishNewsOne / YouTube ]

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Kerry: Let’s discuss the Peace Deal with Israel.

Palestinians: All the Jews must die!

Kerry: Well, I see you have some strong feelings here, but we need to work for a peaceful solution.

Palestinians: The Jews are pigs and monkies and they must die!

Kerry: Ohhkay. Let’s set that aside for now. What specifically can Israel do for you to get to a peaceful resolution?

Palestinians: All the Jews must die!

Kerry: Yes, yes. I hear what you are saying. How about some more land for peace?

Palestinians: All the Jews must die!

Kerry: Uh huh, well it seems like we are making some progress here…

    VetHusbandFather in reply to Yujin. | December 6, 2013 at 1:26 pm

    Well summarized. People the support ‘the Palestinian Cause’ just don’t see this basic fact. I don’t care how unfair anyone thinks that Israel has been to the Palestinians, nothing could justify the complete removal of the Israeli people and nation. And since that is the only stated goal of the Palestinians, you cannot support ‘their cause’ without also supporting that goal.

    Archer in reply to Yujin. | December 6, 2013 at 1:49 pm

    Nice! Reminds me of a scene from the movie “Megamind”:

    Megamind [sparring with Tighten]: Now it’s time for some witty back-and-forth banter!

    Hal (as Tighten) [obviously NOT “sparring”]: *enraged* AAAAAAAAAGH!!!

    Megamind: Okay, I’m not sure where to go with that….

Nobody wants a solution in the Middle east except Israelis (who want peace) and every American administration that wants credit for being the ones that “fixed” the Palastinian problem. Pali’s generate enormous income from victimhood, and if they had a state of their own, they’d be held accountable for their behavior by other sovereign states. Other Arab countries use the Pali’s as a stalking horse and like to keep them stirred up, as long as they don’t try to settle in their lands. Europeans have developed a taste for endless violence to the south as it provides a steady supply of grist for their grievance mill.

Palastinian victimhood is such catnip to the left that even American Jews like to roll in it.

Israel’s best insurance against being pressured into bad deals are the Palestinians’ total intransigence and the Obama Administration’s utter incompetence. Between the two, it’s like the secret formula for a silver bullet.

What is most remarkable is the refusal of the Euro-trash and the media to recognize that neither the PA nor Hamas will ever make a deal. Before the rise of Hamas as a political force in Gaza, Arafat was offered essentially everything he demanded, over 98% of the land area and all other concessions, if the Palestinians would only publicly and in Arabic declare peace and recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. He walked away and returned to the West Bank to begin “infitada” instead.

Until the West cuts off the money, there is no incentive for the PA or Hamas to deal at all.

    Immolate in reply to Estragon. | December 6, 2013 at 2:27 pm

    Neither Abbas nor Hamas have the juice to enforce an agreement upon their constituency. Any leader with the nuts to advance the cause of peace will be deemed a Jew-loving traitor and will be replaced, and probably not nicely. The lid to Pandora’s box was lost years ago.

The Palestinian leadership is completely built around opposing, fighting and blaming Israel. They root out and kill Palestinians for not agreeing with that outlook– occasionally displaying the bodies to the world and claiming that they’re Israeli collaborators and spies.

Without a change in that, there’s no hope for the situation improving. None.

Israel ought to start using its technological magnificence against the West. You want our technology, start supporting us against Arab demands for our genocide,

Never thought this guy could be dumber-looking, but his bad plastic surgery did the trick.

As Nixon would say: “Send it up the flagpole, boys, and see if anyone salutes it.”

Kerry was put into the State Department in order to “build a resume” so he could run for the presidency in 2016. Given that Kerry is extremely ambitious. And, he knows “hot breath” Hillary is also running to be the democratic condendah … You see WHY the Israeli “chip” is being played. Kerry has nothing else!

I don’t know when the Palestinian horse stopped being the top headline grabber at the NY Times … But it’s disappeared from their front pages.

Kerry can’t run on his relationship with Egypt, either.

Where on the international stage does Kerry gain any traction?

Obama’s not doing well, either.

Yes, there once was a time Obama made Netanyahu sweat. But if you’re looking to guess ten chess moves ahead, Iran’s threat is real. But the Saudi’s are now awake to it. And, they are also aware that Bashir Assad owns the throne in Syria. And, hasn’t been wiped off the map.

It also seems funny that Kerry is trying to sound tough … after so many of our Mideast errors … that one wonders what US participation would look like … when we did nothing about Syria.

Doesn’t Kerry ever do a reality check?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend